October Surprise: US Raids Syria

I don’t see this news pushing the economy off the minds of voters.

What’s come out so far makes this sound like a very limited targeted strike. We will update with candidate statements when available.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/07/08)

This podcast provides analysis of the second presidential debate between Obama and McCain, which was held at Belmont University in Tennessee.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/02/08)

This podcast offers post vice presidential debate commentary and analysis of the debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (09/26/08)

This podcast offers commentary and analysis about the first presidential debate about the economy and foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain at the University of Mississippi.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

First Presidential Election Debate Liveblog: From The University of Mississippi in Oxford

5:15: All times are Central. Deal with it, you coastal elites!

More on the University of Mississippi here. Fun fact: It was used as a hospital during the Civil War for both Union and Confederate soldiers. So there’s some bipartisanship. There’s no truth to the rumor that John McCain was there at that time, however. A must read about the civil rights history of the college is here. There’s no truth to the rumor that Barack Obama was the … uhm, named person in the headline there. Seriously, John McCain’s grandfather is one of the famous alumni of the college.

The moderator tonight is PBS’ Jim Lehrer. This is Lehrer’s record 11th time moderating a presidential debate, and his wiki page describes him as a bus enthusiast. So he’s got that going for him.

The format: two podiums. Sections of the debate will include introductory statements of two minutes, followed by five minutes of debate between the candidates. It’s a really nice format.

5:36: Mississippi is the state where Teddy Roosevelt refused to shoot a captured bear, enraging Stephen Colbert but capturing the heart of a nation. Nowadays, killing a moose is a qualification for national office. How times change!

5:53: Mississippi soda/pop fact: Mississippi is the birthplace of the Barq’s Root Beer. And also apparently the home of some very, very crazy ad wizards.

6:04: Ole Miss is in Oxford, in Lafayette County. In the county, Obama beat Clinton 2,849 to 2,171. John McCain won a virtually uncontested primary in the county with 1,953 votes (Huckabee received about 300 votes and Ron Paul less than 100 votes).

6:48: Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is so concerned about the financial crisis that she’s talking on the House floor about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his denunciations of Israel. I understand that Presidents have to have multiple things in their crossfire, but you would think that wouldn’t apply to the House. Especially in the middle of a crisis.

7:04: In the audience: a lot of students and the Washington elite.

7:11: Nate Silver has a good debate preview up.

7:14: Matt Yglesias asks if the debate itself will be in HD. It’s a good question. Angelo believes it will be. Confirmation: here.

7:17: A C-Span history of debates.

7:18: C-Span’s debate hub is awesome.

7:19: The largest airport in Mississippi, in Jackson, was renamed the Jackson-Evers International Airport to honor assassinated NAACP leader Medgar Evers.

7:23: Marc Ambinder’s preview is also worth reading.

7:27:This week in 1963: JFK becomes the first president to sleep overnight in Duluth. Thanks, PBS.

7:29: Listening to C-Span calls before a debate is excruciating. Supporters of either side are just grating.

7:31: Janet Brown, Executive Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, starts off the speeches that are very unimportant, and meant only to stoke the egos of those who give them.

7:37: Frank Fahrenkopf chastises the crowd to not applaud or make any noise.

7:42: Should I be concerned that there’s been multiple listings of corporate sponsors? Or is that too 3rd party-sh of me?

7:43: THe University lost power because of an accident with an immigration line earlier today.

7:50: Michelle Obama is in the house.

7:51: Jim Lehrer is on the stage. He talks down to people who “volunteered or participated” in the primary debates. Let’s hope Hillary isn’t watching. He talks about needing “absolute concentration” and asks Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama to take names of whoever makes sound.

8:00: And away we go! Tom Brokaw says the “Reagan Democrat” is the voter both are courting. Jim Lehrer says he has not cleared his questions with anyone. Both candidates arive to the only applause of the night.

8:03: First question: Eisenhower talks about economic strength being the basis for military strength. Where do you stand on the economic recovery plan? Obama goes first. Talks about Main Street, and how his proposals protect the taxpayer. His four point plan: oversight, the possibility of getting the money back (equity), executive pay, and help to homeowners. Segues into a criticism of Republican financial policy, including deregulation, and including the phrase “trickle down.” McCain references Kennedy (who has since been released from the hospital, per Politico). McCain is talking to Lehrer, while Obama was addressing the American people. Odd distinction. He talks at length about the bipartisanship in Congress, and mentions accountability, options for loans, and “a number of other essential elements.” He then seems to try to side with House Republicans, who want something wholly different. He ends up with a reference to foreign oil. Obama mentions that “we haven’t seen the language yet” which is head scratching. Of course, Lehrer is referring to a plan that is being negotiated as we speak. I think he’s pressing a bit in the wrong direction. The key is what they think should be done, not really what they think about some abstract plan that no longer exists. Obama addressed that answer to Lehrer. McCain tells a story about Eisenhower and Normandy, and his willingness to resign if D-Day failed. He implies that Chris Cox should resign because he failed - but doesn’t say why. Obama says there must responsibility not just when there is a crisis, and talks about the problems before the crisis erupted last week. Funny moment: Obama refers to McCain saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and Lehrer makes him say it directly to McCain, who jokes that he could hear Obama the first time. McCain’s response: “We have fundamental problems in the system.” It’s pretty ridiculous, given his comments about the fundamentals of the economy. He finishes with an ode to the American worker that Lenin could have written. Time spent talking on this: directly even. To the second.

8:14: Second question: what differences to you have on the economy: McCain wants spending under control. Talks about earmarking as a gateway drug. The joke about bear DNA doesn’t get any laugh. He holds up a pen to veto and says “this one is kinda old.” He’s making the old person jokes himself. Yeesh. McCain criticizes Obama for making earmarks. Obama agrees that earmarks are abused, and often by lobbyists. Obama says earmarks cost 18 billion, but McCain is proposing 300 billion dollars worth of tax cuts to the rich. Obama is working overload to relate to the common man. McCain goes on again about the earmarks and the 18 billion dollars, and criticizes them for corrupting people. He mentions Obama’s 800 billion of new spending. Obama talks about his plans: closing corporate “loopholes,” health care spending, etc. Obama again says earmarks alone will not get the middle class “back on track.” McCain talks about the business tax being the second highest in the world, to get more businesses in America. He goes back to earmarks AGAIN, and he’s getting a little silly on the point. He talks about the tax cuts he wants to give everyone. Fact check: earmarks are only 0.63% of the federal budget. Obama talks about his tax cuts, and criticizes McCain for making health care benefits taxable. McCain jumps in, and criticizes Obama for … his vote on the Energy Bill. McCain only wants to talk about earmarks. I’m at a bit of a loss. Obama mentions the tax breaks, and criticizes mcCain for opposing the Energy Bill right now for the position on eliminating tax breaks for oil company.

8:26: Third question: what would you give up to pay for this recovery plan: Obama says it’s hard to say, but some things will have to be delayed. Talks about needing to get energy indepdence in ten years. That’s very, very optimistic. Also mentions health care, and deductibles going up 30%. Also mentions competing globally, specifically in education. Also mentions infrastructure, including roads and the energy grid. A certain viewer near Albany, NY likes the road shout out. McCain talks about needing to cut spending, criticizing Obama for having the most liberal record. McCain wants to end ethanol spending, and better bids for contracts for the military. McCain talks about knowing how to get defense spending under control. Lehrer wants to know what will delayed specifically. Obama talks about postponing parts of his energy plan, and 15 billion lost through Medicare. Mentions working with Tom Coburn setting up “Google for Government.” McCain wants a spending freeze on everything but Defense, Veterans, and “other important” areas. Obama says you need a scalpel, not a hatchet, mentioning the 79 billion dollar surplus of the Iraqi government. McCain wants 45 nuclear power plants, and gives an awkward climate change shout out to Sen. Clinton. Lehrer doesn’t like these answers, and tries again. Obama segues into a discussion about values, and talks about corporate tax cuts versus health care. McCain does not want health care handed to the federal government, and gives a variation on the Harry and Louise schtick. McCain goes back to spending, and talks about owing China $500 billion. That’s true, but not really the root of the problem as he implies. Obama refers to the “orgy of spending” under Bush and criticizes McCain for voting for Bush’s budgets.

8:38: What are the lessons of Iraq? McCain: You caannot have a failed strategy that causes you to lose. A little broad to me. Bad strategy is as old as warfare itself. McCain hugs the surge as much as he possibly could. Talks about “winning” in Iraq and “coming home with victory and honor.” This is about 100 degrees difference away from what Petraeus describes. HD update: Apparently they both look weird in HD. Obama talks about opposing the war from the start, and tells the same story about taking an unpopular position as McCain. Obama talks about being distracted from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda being resurgent. McCain talks about Obama saying that the surge failed, not going to Iraq, and not holding hearings on his subcommittee. Obama looks amused, and restates Biden saying that those things are held at full committee. Obama gives his own McCain quotes, including greeted as liberators and history between Shia and Sunni, leading it into a question of judgment. McCain says Obama does not understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. McCain says Obama refuses to believe we are winning. He describes a strategy that sounds a whole lot like a tactic. It’s a strange distinction. McCain talks about Obama not funding the troops. Obama knocks it down quite easily, actually, saying that McCain and him both voted against bills for other reasons, and talks about at length about Afghanistan. McCain talks more about the surge and Petraeus, and says he knew the surge would succeed this much.

8:50: Should more troops be sent to Afghanistan? Obama: Send more troops ASAP, as per the commanders in the ground. Obama goes back to Afghanistan and says it cannot be separated. No mention of Pakistan thus far, except implicitly mentioning Al Qaeda “crossing the border.” Finally mentions Pakistan. Three points: More troops, deal with the poppy trade, and dealing with Pakistan. McCain talks about the Russians leaving and the rise of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. McCain says he is not prepared to cut off aid to Pakistan, and criticizes Obama for launching strikes, or rather, for saying it out loud - effectively admitting he would do the same thing but not say it out loud. He talks about Waziristan. McCain wants the Iraq strategy. But Iraq is urban warfare; Waziristan is remotte tribes. Building walls is pointless when there’s already mountains in between people. a WSJ article a long while ago made this point. (A GOP one I linked to before). Obama says it’s about having intelligence regarding Al Qaeda, and taking them out, and that McCain has made comments regarding extinghuishing AL Qaeda and singing songs about bombing Iran. Obama says that Musharraf was coddled and the policy was anti-democratic. McCain says there was a failed state when Musharraf came to power. McCain tries to defend his temperament, and defends himself by voting against troops going to Lebanon; supporting the Gulf War and going into Bosnia and Kosovo; he wanted the troops in Somalia to apparently do more “peace making force.” But the criticism was regarding his words, both originally from McCain and rebuttal from Obama. This is just a tangent regarding his record. He says if Iraq does not succeed, then lives are wasted; the logical implication is that the deaths in Vietnam and Somalia were in vain. Obama says no soldiers die in vain, and all service should be honored, but the question is regarding how to keep America safe. He criticizes McCain for saying America could “muddle through” Afghanistan. McCain criticizes Obama for not going to Afghanistan and not holding hearings again.

Discipline: McCain has oddly times smiles, as usual, but is otherwise OK. Obama seems pretty OK. No sighs so far. Lehrer says time is even.

8:50: What is the threat from Iran? McCain says there they propose an existential threat to Israel, and that there can never again be a Holocaust. McCain says a League of Democracies could take effective sanctions, mentioning the Germans, French, and British. He also mentions Iran infiltrating Iraq. Obama says the Republican Guard is a terrorist organization (and says he always said that) and said that the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran’s hand. Agrees that a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated, both for Israel and to prevent an arms race in the Middle East. Obama says cooperation from states like Russia and China will be needed for sanctions to be effective. He talks about diplomacy. He says that efforts at isolation only accelerate efforts to get nuclear weapons. McCain talks about Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe Israel out, and not wanting to give him a propaganda platform. McCain talks about needing preconditions being necessary, citing Reagan and Nixon. Obama says even Kissinger wants America to meet with Iran. He cites Bush sending Bill Burns to talks with Iran, and admitting it may not work. Obama says that after cutting off talks with North Korea, nuclear work was quadrupled, and nuclear secrets were sent to Syria, and through talks progress was made, even if it is on shaky ground. He even mentions McCain not wanting to meet with the President of Spain. McCain says he will not set a visitor’s schedule. McCain says that without precondition, meeting with Ahmadinejad legitimizes comments about Israel. Obama pushes back on Israel, but McCain interrupts, and makes a joke about Obama not denying the words of Ahmadinejad.

9:16: Russia! What do you do, what -DO- you do? Obama says the relationship needs to be reevaluated, but that the actions in Georgia were unwarrented, and that the six point peace plan needs to be implemented. Talks abot needing to be supportive of fledging democracies, and expanding NATO to countries like Georgia. Also talks about expanding cooperation, specifically with loose nukes. McCain tries to hammer home that Obama doesn’t understand foreign relations, saying Obama’s first statement only called for restraint on both sides. McCain says he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw KGB. Not sure about that one. Talks about concern over resurgence of the Russian Empire. Says that Russia is in violation of the cease fire agreement. Obama tries to give a better framing of his position on Georgia, but widely agrees with McCain. Mentions the Georgian economy. He talks about how he warned about Russian peacekeepers in Georgia in April, but nothing was done. Obama says that an energy strategy is necessary to deal with not only Russia but also Venezuela and Iran. Mentions energy, including nuclear, wind, and clean coal. Talks about McCain voting against renewable energy. McCain also talks about Nunn-Lugar. Obama says that he’s just for storing nuclear waste carefully. He wants to make another point, but McCain talks over him and I can’t tell what either said.

9:25: What is the likelihood of another 9/11? McCain says it is much less than it was on 9/12. He mentions that he and Lieberman wanted to start the 9/11 Commission. He seems to be making the Richardson approach: that he personally knows a lot of things and can get things done because he knows how to do it. It’s not what he did in the primary. Obama says America is safer in some ways. He talks about chemical sites, ports, and transit. He circle back to nuclear proliferation and says it is the biggest threat to the United States. Says missile defense is necessary, but it is not more important than nuclear waste. Says Al Qaeda is operating in 60 countries, and the root cause is in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Says America’s standing in the world has been damaged, and work is needed to restore the standing as a city on a hill. McCain cites Reagan and missile defense, for some reason. He goes back to Obama “not understanding” and says if there is failure in Iraq, Al Qaeda will have a base there. Obama goes back to McCain and Bush focusing on Iraq, while Bin Laden is still out there, while seguing to Chin being involved around the world everywhere where America is not, and the ability to project power of America is hurt. Segues into a discussion of veterans, and that a broader strategic vision is necessary. McCain says that Obama does not have the experience of knowledge necessary to be president. He compares Obama’s stubbornness to that of Bush, and says Obama not admitting the surge succeeded is really bad. Obama mentions his father coming from Kenya, and wanting to come to America because of the standing of America in the world, and that this idea is important, and investing ni how ordinary people live out their dreams is important. McCain one ups that by talking about coming home from prison and normalizing relations with Vietnam.

That ends the debate. I’m going to ponder grades, but Lehrer gets an easy A. Well done.

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: Presidential Debate Between Barack Obama and John McCain at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss)

Tonight’s debate between John McCain and Barack Obama will begin at 9pm ET. The moderator will be PBS’ Jim Leher. The topic will be foreign policy (although, they will likely spend some time discussing the economy as well). Be sure to check out our blog on the debate or listen to our podcast as well…

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (09/24/08)

This podcast discusses the proposed legislation to bailout Wall Street, McCain suspending his campaign to return to Washington and his call to postpone this Friday’s debate, a debate preview and a discussion of foreign policy issues (both obvious and not so obvious), and more…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words

Political cartoons have long been staples in American politics.  Before television, internet cartoons, and very controversial New Yorker covers, editorial cartoonists rawly exposed political happenings and projected their interpretations into the minds of their viewers.  William Tweed, a corrupt political machine politician in 19th century New York City, once commented: 

I don’t care a straw for your newspaper articles, my constituents don’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures.

Here’s a look at some of this week’s political cartoons and what they’re thinking.  It is important to note where and what papers these cartoons are published in, as they provide important insight into the messages and the minds effecting local voters.

John Traver, of the Albuquerque Journal in New Mexico has one take on Obama and his perceived ego:

John Darkow, of the Columbia Daily Tribune in Missouri has quite a different take of McCain, Obama and an Iraqi withdrawal:

Mike Lester, of the Rome News-Tribune in Rome, Georgia has an interesting take on Obama and the Media:

\

Nate Beeler, of The Washington Examiner, in D.C. also looks at the media and Obama:

Scott Stantis, of the Birmingham News in Alabama takes a critical look at Obama’s move to the center: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

UPDATED: A Note On Obama’s Management Of Press During Trip To Middle East

For the past few weeks, especially in our podcasts, I have been criticizing the Obama Campaign for isolating Obama from press.  I realize the political reasons for doing so.  I understand that it is smart politics.  I understand that this is a campaign, and therefore political considerations are often paramount.  I am also not suggesting that Obama’s handling of the press is or should be a reason not to vote for him.  I am simply pointing out an issue that I believe is worthy of criticism.  That said, on Hardball yesterday, Andrea Mitchell offered an example of and criticized the Obama campaign for its intense management of the press during his trip abroad.  Video here.  Transcript:

MITCHELL: But let me just say something about the message management.

He didn‘t have reporters with him. He didn‘t have a press pool. He didn‘t do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you‘re seeing is not reporters brought in. You‘re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they‘re not interviews from a journalist.

So, there‘s a real press issue here. Politically, it‘s smart as can be. But we have not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea.

A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of service people who are African-American, or did all they choose to join somebody they like, apparently? What‘s the story?

MITCHELL: I can‘t really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations…

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: … I just can‘t report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines.

That‘s my—that‘s my issue.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: We don‘t know what we are seeing.

I have great respect for the military, of what they do best, which is to fight war, keep the peace, do all sorts of economic and civil reconstruction here in Iraq. I don‘t think journalism is the prime thing that we recruit them and pay them for.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, do you think that the military‘s been too positive towards the Barack trip, Andrea?

MITCHELL: They have so—they have tried so hard to be balanced.

In fact, they keep emphasizing this is not his congressional delegation, not his co-del, to use the slang. It is Jack Reed‘s. Jack Reed is the senior senator on this trip.

Putting politics aside for a moment, for someone that is running for president, as voters we should demand more interaction between Obama and the press.

On a somewhat related note, Michael Grunwald concludes his most recent Time article by observing:

That doesn’t mean that anything’s probable. The media will try to preserve the illusion of a toss-up; you’ll keep seeing “Obama Leads, But Voters Have Concerns” headlines. But when Democrats are winning blood-red congressional districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, when the Republican president is down to 28 percent, when the economy is tanking and world affairs keep breaking Obama’s way, it shouldn’t be heresy to recognize that McCain needs an improbable series of breaks. Analysts get paid to analyze, and cable news has airtime to fill, so pundits have an incentive to make politics seem complicated. In the end, though, it’s usually pretty simple. Everyone seems to agree that 2008 is a change election. Which of these guys looks like change?

I don’t want to overstate my case here, because there is certainly no question that Obama’s policy positions present significantly broader change from Bush’s than McCain’s do; however, one thing that is certainly business as usual is strong line that Obama is drawing between himself and the press.  As president, I can understand limiting access quite a bit.  But as a candidate?  I’m just not sure a candidate has earned that right or has a legitimate reason to isolate himself the way that Obama has.

Is this a major voting issue? No.  But is it a point worthy of criticism?  You bet.  Demand more.  And once you get that, demand more.  Voters can make our leaders better by doing just that.

*UPDATE* The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman has a piece up, which criticizes the campaign for retribution (or what seems like retribution) against reporters they become furious with and the potential consequences of this.

Sphere: Related Content

An Example Of MoveOn’s Practice Of Intellectual Dishonesty

Slate’s Chris Beam notes an interesting exchange between former Obama advisor Samantha Power and MoveOn.org’s Tod Matzzie on the subject of withdrawal from Iraq.  Matzzie’s approach fires me up for several reasons as I will explain below.  First, the context:

During her presentation, Power had spoken about the need to acknowledge that withdrawal could get ugly. Tom Matzzie, Washington director for MoveOn.org, objected to her “framing.” Here’s the whole exchange (cleaned up a bit for readability):

Tom Matzzie: The question is really about framing, and about building the story about what withdrawal means. The human consequences are something you have to consider, but we can’t help the right build the frame that disengagement is going to have negative humanitarian consequences. … The war’s already a tragedy, you know? That’s why you don’t want to get into them, they’re tragedies. So I’d be interested about how you can revise your language to help not build that right-wing frame. …

Samantha Power: I don’t feel inclined to revise my frame out of deference to this manifestly moribund discourse that the administration and its supporters inflicted upon us in the course of the last few years.

By avoiding addressing John McCain’s apocalyptic claims about what will follow a U.S. withdrawal, we have allowed his claims to hang above the Iraq debate. When he says, as he said last year, that when we leave Iraq it’s going to make Srebrenica and Rwanda look like a Sunday school picnic—those were his analogies that he used on multiple occasions—and we say, No no, it’s going to be fine, because we don’t want to address that there could be any downside at all to withdrawal, I think we’re giving him a free pass.

I think we can instead say, [look at] all the costs—to Iraqis, to the region, to Afghanistan, to the military readiness, to U.S. national security—of staying, and address that head on, and then say the costs of leaving are unknowable. You, who predicted we’d have a cakewalk, are now to be trusted to tell us it’s going to be like Rwanda when we leave? How’s that? …

[Then we say], there are always risks, there are always consequences that are unknowable. Here’s what we’re going to do to address the concern. I think that’s a much more effective approach than to say, Oh , just because all the violence followed us into Iraq it’s going to follow us out of Iraq. I think it’s insulting to the American voter, the American people who know that certain things are unknowable. … That kind of belief that it’s all or nothing is in its own way analogous to the old one that was in this administration.

Beam goes on to wonder out loud what the significance is for Obama.  I don’t think that’s the biggest takeaway and I’m really not sure where he was going.  Rather, I think the takeaway is just how off the rails MoveOn can be at times as well as how quick they are willing to resort to tactics used by the Bush Administration (the principle source of their criticism…oh irony).

Matzzie’s suggestion to Power represents nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.  Certainly, I understand the politics involved.  And, I understand MoveOn’s desire not to feed into a narrative that is being used to pursue policy objectives that are completely antithetical to their own.  So, I am sympathetic to Matzzie’s (and presumbaly MoveOn’s) desire to shape the narrative in terms that are more favorable to them.  That said, it’s simply the wrong thing to do…

• First, they may not like to hear this, but the simple reality is that refusing to acknowledge the repercussions of withdrawal (and the corollorary of not even accepting the possibility/liklihood) is nothing short of what MoveOn consistently criticizes the Bush Administration for - misinformation.  The mere fact that MoveOn believes it is doing so to support “good” ends, does not excuse or justify misinformation or presenting incomplete information.
• Secondly, they may think that it is strategically smart to pursue that path and atempt to stifle people like Power, but they are wrong.  Whenever I give a lecture on effective public speaking, one of the first things I talk about is the need to accept the drawbacks of the position that you are advocating.  This is necessary and useful for a few reasons.  1) It helps establish your credibility with the audience.  If people know that you are willing to tell them the drawbacks to your position, then they are more likely to accept the benfits as true.  2) It also allows you to control/shape the discussion surrounding the weaknesses of your position.  Why let the person opposing you have the ability to discuss your drawbacks, when you can do it yourself and frame it in a way that supports your position.  Power’s response seems to acknowledge the necessity of paticipating in this kind of debate.  And, it is troubling to me, that MoveOn somehow thinks that its better to ignore reality or present misinformation in order to support their cause.  I’m unclear why people are supposed to accept their criticism when the Bush Administration does similar things, but people are supposed to support them when they do it.
• Third, it’s just another example of MoveOn simply contributing to the problem with our political discourse.  Yes, I understand that there are awful GOP groups out there and that the left needs the ability to fight back.  On the other hand, there’s no need to fight back with the same silly tactics.  In my opinion, reason will prevail, so long as it is being explained in an effective way.  MoveOn has made it clear that it is not interested in enhancing the political debate, but just serving as a counterbalance to silly right wing groups.  If that’s what they really want, then fine.  But, people need to stop taking them seriously then.  Just like people, including conservatives, should stop respecting/supporting silly right wing groups too.

I respect Power’s response.  Whether or not I agree with her positin is irrelevant.  What I do agree with and applaud is her ability to intellectually honest, even about the disadvantages of the position she supports.  A Democracy such as ours is predicated upon the fact that people vote with useful information in mind, not public relations tricks or misinformation.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s an obligation for any campaign or organization that advocates as position to be as honest as possible.  Afterall, if you’re advocating something, then it is assumed that you really believe that it is for the best.  Instead of trying to constantly trick people into siding with you, why not convince them?

So, in conclusion, shame on MoveOn and hooray for Power.

Sphere: Related Content

Maliki Backs Obama’s Iraq Plan, Then Claims He Doesn’t?

One risk of doing podcasts are that they can become quickly outdated. That happened today. In an interview with Der Speigel magazine, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki all but endorsed Obama’s Iraq plan:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

This was just after Maliki and President Bush had agreed on “time horizons” and Gen. Petraeus had said in an interview that withdrawal depended on facts on the ground, and would not consider a timeline.

Marc Ambinder laid out why this was a big deal:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq’s Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there’s no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what’s left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren’t equivalent to Iraq’s, but… Malik isn’t listening to the generals on the ground…but the “hasn’t been to Iraq” line doesn’t work here.

Later in the day, US Central Command (the office of General Petraeus) issued a “correction”:

Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, issued a statement saying Mr. Maliki’s statement had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq,” but it did not address a specific error. It did soften his support for Mr. Obama’s plan and implied a more tentative approach to withdrawing troops.

Matt Yglesias underlines why the correction isn’t much of one:

… [T]he walkback (a) doesn’t involve Maliki on the record, (b) says the reports are inaccurate but doesn’t name inaccuracies, and (c) was issued through CENTCOM. Basically, this morning we saw Maliki speaking in person and endorsing Obama’s plan to end the occupation in no uncertain terms. By the late afternoon, an Iraqi government spokesman was pretending this never happened in a statement released by the occupying army. That’s hardly even a serious effort at bamboozlement.

The first serious response by McCain was essentially the campaigning scoffing that Obama had not supported the surge that was responsible for withdrawal being palatable:

“Let’s be clear, the only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfield-strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we’ve achieved and which Barack Obama opposed. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has never ignored the facts on the ground in Iraq, he’s never avoided the warzone before proposing new strategy, and he’s never voted against funding our troops in the field. If John McCain was following Barack Obama’s lead on foreign policy, the United States would have already withdrawn from Iraq in a humiliating defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008.

The second response of the McCain campaign emphasizing that Obama ignores shifting events on the ground:

“The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed.”

This all comes a day after John McCain had started to use the phrase “succeeded” in regards to Iraq instead of “succeeding.” He crouched his words with caveats, but the shift in emphasis was clear:

“I’m happy to tell you we’ve succeeded in Iraq and we—unless we reverse the strategy that’s succeeding we will win this war. But it’s fragile and it must be dictated—the strategy must be dictated by the situation on the ground. Not some artificially, politically schedule for withdraw as sen Obama wants to do,” McCain told a crowd in Kansas City, MO.

Reporters questioned McCain on his rhetoric of success at a stop in Grand Haven, MI since in the past McCain has phrased the status in Iraq as “succeeding,” as opposed to “succeeded.”

McCain told reporters, “Military, economic, political, and all the benchmarks we said that the Iraqi government had to meet” have allowed for the word “succeeded” to be used.

However McCain admitted, “They haven’t met them all. Do they have a lot more to go– distance to go? Yes and it’s very fragile. And can be reversed. But they’ve succeeded and if we will continue this, we will win this war.”

Moreover, with Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq this weekend, this is about the perfect time for this story to break as far as the Obama campaign is concerned. Moreover, as Joe Klein points out, Maliki also rejected a permanent presence in the way that McCain had supported.

Where do things go from here? It seems that things in Iraq will either stay mostly as they are or get slightly better, or alternatively get much worse. If things stay close to how they are, Maliki will keep up local pressure for the Americans to leave. If things get worse, McCain may lose his leverage that the surge was the reason for things getting better.

McCain had for a while a strategic advantage on Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki ended that today.

It’s not that surprising that no one on the Corner has mentioned this yet. Until something else happens, there’s not really much to say. Redstate has two posts: one on the surge being the reason for any withdrawal, another trumpeting the “correction” press release without wondering what exactly the mistranslation was. Powerline has not mentioned it at all. The Weekly Standard hasn’t posted anything at all since the Der Spiegel article came out. Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall takes a stab: she argues that America should determine how long it takes to make Iraq secure and only then leave, no matter what Maliki says. The problem is that McCain has already said that Iraq should have a strong say:

Question: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”

McCain’s Answer: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”

There’s no easy argument out of this for McCain. The two responses by his campaign today and the confused reaction from the conservative blogosphere makes this pretty clear.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (07/17/08)

In this podcast, we discuss the New Yorker cover cartoon about Barck Obama, June fundraising figures, Obama’s trip to the Europe and the Middle East, the 08 Bloggers Network and more…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

How Much Did Obama Change His Website On Iraq?

There was a big uproar after a NY Daily News article that Obama had scrubbed his website of criticism of the surge. Wired takes a look at the exact wording that was changed, and finds a more subtle change:

It’s not until halfway down the page that readers see that the Obama campaign changed its spin on President Bush’s policy of sending additional troops to Iraq to quell the violence.

The Friday, July 11, version of the page says: “at great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006.”

The Monday, July 14 version spidered by Versionista says: “Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military’s hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families.”

In time-honored political tradition, Obama also revised that section of the site to use another statistic selectively to make his point. The section was changed to say that since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died.

But military statistics released last week show that violence in the form of attacks, and the number of US casualties in Iraq, are now at a four-year low. The attacks and casualties have plummeted from a peak in June 2007, according to those statistics.

…

But the side-by-side comparison published on McCain’s page on Tuesday shows a more complex picture.

If anything, the changes simply reflect that Obama is just another politician.

The question of Iraq, it strikes me, is a bigger one than it is implied here. At heart, Obama and McCain disagree on whether the war was worth fighting and is worth continuing to fight. The surge will continue to be a major talking point through the election, but I’m not sure this particular dispute gets to the heart of real debate over Iraq. And of course, the Obama campaign would probably point out that McCain is drawing nearer to Obama’s position on Afghanistan.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Press Call: Sen. Biden and Susan Rice Discuss Obama’s Plan for Iraq

[Obama Campaign Press Release/Conference Call from July 14, 2008]

TODAY: Obama Campaign to Hold Conference Call With Senator Biden and Susan Rice to Discuss Senator Obama’s Plan for Iraq

Chicago, IL– The Obama campaign will host a conference call today with Senator Joe Biden and Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Susan Rice to discuss Senator Obama’s op-ed in the New York Times today, in which he outlines his strategic plan for success in Iraq that puts the United States security first. His plan calls for a phased redeployment of our combat troops within 16 months, with a residual force to carry out discrete missions. This redeployment will allow the U.S. to properly address the growing threat from a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and will allow for sufficient pressure on the Iraqis that is necessary to achieve political reconciliation.

You can find Senator Obama’s op-ed in the New York Times HERE.

Monday, July 14th
12:30 PM ET//11:30 AM CT

[AUDIO]

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (07/03/08)

In this podcast we discuss (1) the shake up in the McCain Campaign, (2) Obama’s statement on revising his Iraq strategy, (3) Obama and his history with low income housing subsidies for private developers and (4) rumors about McCain’s VP announcement timetable…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/24/08)

John and Angelo are back and will be recording podcasts several times a week now.  This podcast covers (1) Obama’s ‘get over it’ statement and (2) McCain staffer Charles Black’s comments to Fortune Magazine regarding who would benefit from a terrorist attack.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

The Worst Ad I’ve Ever Seen

OK, that’s a slight exaggeration. But it is mind numbingly bad. And I just had to sit through it watching Morning Joe.

John McCain has a strong interest in not limiting 527s. Democratic 527s may have a bunch of money, but they are famously incompetent in getting message across. The above ad is just unlikely to appeal to anyone that does not already share Moveon’s beliefs. Another example is the famous “Betray-us” ad that only gave conservatives a rallying point at a time when the Iraq war was really unpopular.

Moveon has absolutely no credibility outside of themselves. Perhaps some time they will learn to try to convince people. Guilt trips with babies will just get people to roll their eyes.

It says something that a parody of the ad is actually more effective in conveying a message than the ad itself.

h/t to Jason Zengerle

Sphere: Related Content

Morning Briefing (April 9, 2008)

What’s news today…

• Mark Penn’s new role is clarified.  Despite all the hullabaloo, it’s clear that Penn will not play as influential a role as he was or what many still think he will.
• Sizzle: TNR scolds Obama for dismissing Clinton and McCain’s foreign policy experience as well as for  using his personal experience living abroad as a child to buttress his foreign policy credentials.
• An excellent look inside McCain’s campaign.  Is this what a McCain administration will look like?
• In our last podcast, we discussed Obama’s reversal on public financing and its political implications.  Coincidentally, it seems that Obama is preparing his justification for not opting into the public finance system should he become the nominee by contending, “We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”
• Why?  Howard Dean criticizes McCain and calls him “not a strong candidate.”  Somewhat ironically, one of the reasons he suggested McCain is a weak candidate is because “he is out of touch with the American people.”  To me, it certainly seems out of touch to suggest that McCain is a weak candidate.  I recognize that as Chairman, Dean has to support his party, but it seems that recognizing reality is often the fastest way to earn credibility.  Recognizing McCain’s strength is not mutually exclusive with opposing him.
• Bill Clinton’s recent trip to Puerto Rico could have gone better.  A report: While Clinton was giving a speech, in English:Nobody interpreted, and only a handful of audience members seemed to understand him. The crowd — raucous and dancing a few minutes earlier — remained mostly silent during the 10-minute speech. Some people left. Others chatted on their cellphones. ‘What is he saying? Do we clap now?’ asked Jerry Nieves Rosario, a college student who speaks only Spanish.
• Inform yourself: This roundup of Iran nuclear related news is useful.
• Can we just stop with the ‘calls to Al Gore‘ for the time being?  Honestly, who throws a shoe?
• A Democratic debate on Science?  Maybe, it’s still very early in the planning stage.  I like the idea, that’s for sure.

 

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »